Following a tip from the Antistate channel, I watched a video from the MGIMO political club, where all the main currents of libertarianism are explained in just over six minutes. For me, six minutes was taken up by the description of agorism alone (by the way, there will soon be one about ancap, and that will likely be even longer — I can’t help myself, I get carried away, and every new video ends up longer than the previous one).
Overall, it turned out to be a rather strange “Everything About Elephants”; I don’t quite understand the target audience of the video. For political science students — it’s too condensed. For grandmothers — it’s too saturated with terms. For school children — it’s not memey enough. It feels like they worked for a grade, although, in theory, the political club should be optional for students.
If you think I’m wrong, please let me know in the comments or in the chat. Perhaps I should make the presentation in my own videos more concise? After all, the younger political club channel has a thousand subscribers with only three released videos, while Libertarian Band has only eight hundred, so it wouldn’t be a sin to learn from colleagues, if I can figure out the trick)))
Here he is, the Naked Devil, the famous Estonian dismembering executioner!
Anarchy and Panarchy are not two opposing forms of social organization. In fact, Panarchy is primarily a method of solving the problems of social organization, and through these methods, anarchy, as well as statism or communism, or any possible social model, can be realized and implemented by those who share the idea.
Panarchists call for freedom of action for statists, as well as for all others. Everyone could have the regime and conditions they chose; in that case, they would no longer need to fear or fight one another. No more forced “marriages” with any government, army, trade union, or school. Every individual should be free to secede from any of them by making a unilateral declaration and to join or establish any alternatives they may like, always at their own expense and risk.
Panarchism is nothing other than the freedom of disconnection and connection, consistently applied in spheres where it has not yet been realized, namely in political, economic, and social relations.
Libertarians say: Let those who believe in religion have religion; let those who believe in government have government; but let those who believe in freedom have freedom and do not force them to accept a religion or government they do not want.
Charles T. Spreading
Anarchists should not threaten their faith with destruction, but they may try to convey it to them through their words or their own joint and competing examples of living.
There is no difference between consistent libertarianism and anarchism. Their common foundation is voluntarism, self-reliance, natural rights and freedoms, individual sovereignty, and free choice. It is only a matter of consumer sovereignty in relation to so-called “government services.”
Full suffrage includes the right to vote for oneself outside of any compulsory political, economic, and social system and in any system that corresponds to one’s own individual choice or invention, and to have, in addition, all other electoral powers you wish to have — but only among like-minded volunteers.
The opposition of party politics to party power does not require the opposition of political, economic, social, and military policy to individual separatism, but rather requires such consistent opposition to territorial statism and extraterritorial autonomy. Only complete extraterritorial autonomy for all dissenters can establish peace, justice, and freedom for all.
Panarchism proposes providing the possibility of conscientious objection to military service, compulsory taxation, trade unions, school attendance, and other specific compulsory practices, but also an overarching objection against all compulsory, exclusive, territorial, political, economic, and social systems, institutions, and practices. The practice of panarchism implies individual secessionism and personal or non-territorial legal organization on a voluntary basis, regardless of whether the secessionists and voluntary partners are anarchists or statists.
Panarchists will also be mistaken and repeat mistakes. But they will do so with a decisive difference:
Their mistakes will be made only at their own expense, not at the expense of politicians, bureaucrats, and ruling parties, largely at the expense of other people, even dissenters.
Panarchy also relies on the full recognition of all individual rights — to the extent that they are known, publicized, and understood. Since individual rights offer only options or spheres of free action, no matter how natural they may be for fully adult and enlightened people, they do not obligate people to use them to the full extent.
The goals and means of panarchists could be summarized with statements such as: statism for statists, anarchy for anarchists, free trade for traders, protectionism for protectionists, non-violence for pacifists, defensive force for those who see its justification against initiated aggression, capitalism among consenting adults, and any type of socialism for those who desire it for themselves.
Panarchy, once realized, will give anarchists the opportunity to enjoy anarchic relations with each other, right here and now, without interference from statists. Moreover, once anarchists accept panarchist tolerance, they will have a common platform with statists and all other minority groups who wish to maintain or implement various ideals among themselves, following panarchy.
For example, there is a large amorphous country in the north of the continent; the climate there is cold, there are few valuable resources, and a freedom-loving people live there, where almost everyone has an AK under their bed. There are cities in Ancapistan, where order is maintained by private companies and a small PMC for special operations. Suddenly, some valuable resource is found in this beautiful country. A neighboring country, Etatistan, is an ordinary country with corruption and standing armed forces (of a sort). And Etatistan decided to seize this resource. It failed to acquire it through market methods (the landowner did not sell his land, and blackmailing him to get it also failed), and Etatistan declares war on Ancapistan. And my question is: how can Ancapistan defend itself in order to maintain its independence and remain Ancapistan? How can an armed people, who have plenty of firearms and light armored vehicles (like jeeps and BMPs), withstand an army with aviation and heavy equipment?
Baker
This question has been hanging for a long time; I was too lazy to answer it because I had already answered a very similar one. And then a post on the Freedom pride channel appeared, which touches upon a related topic. Why not take advantage of such a free ride?
As is easy to see, the topic of direct military confrontation between a non-state society and a state military machine worries many, because war is historically the most important thing a state had to be able to do if it wanted to survive; and thanks to its competencies in military affairs, practically the entire Earth is today divided among states, while non-state societies lead a marginal existence on the fringes of civilization.
Zolotorev, whom I am quoting, emphasizes that the ancap community, all other things being equal, is definitely wealthier than the state; due to decentralization, it can afford more flexible tactics, and the costs of implementing a state from scratch on the territory of Ancapistan conquered by the state would be disproportionately high for the state—in other words, the game would not be worth the candle.
Freedom pride shows why it would be difficult for a single gang to seize power in a conditions of an already established ancap. But it also states that if it were not a gang, but a state, it would become a problem.
Therefore, in conclusion, I want to suggest you read my longread on the doctrine of deterrence, which shows exactly that a means has already been invented to prevent a state from attacking you—the threat of guaranteed destruction of the state leader. The state is centralized, and this is its weakest point: it is enough to demotivate a very small circle of people from attacking, and the attack will not take place.
So, of course, an AK under the pillow is great sports equipment, but the key role in the conflict will be played by that very small PMC for special operations you described. This “department for working with difficult clients” at the insurance company, in the event of military action, simply captures the commander-in-chief of Etatistan and twists his balls until he agrees to withdraw the troops and pay a penalty. And if they can’t capture him alive, the problem will be solved by a dozen Tomahawks or something along those lines. This is significantly cheaper than heavy armored vehicles and other means of destroying large military formations that Etatistan possesses.
I will note that Etatistan cannot respond symmetrically, as there is no government in Ancapistan. And even sabotage at a PMC military base would only lead to the insurance company simply having to hire another PMC somewhere else, or simply announcing a substantial reward for the head of the dictator of Etatistan.
Although, to be honest, personally I don’t quite understand why the deposit could not be acquired through market means. Everything has its price, and if a price per share with a large premium to the market is offered, what is the point of refusing? But since that is the condition of the problem, then the word goes to the Tomahawks, provided that the shareholders of the deposit are willing to pay for it.
Suppose states and simply wealthy people had access to killer bees. In that case, the war between the North and the South would not have happened, and slaves in the South would not have been freed. On the other hand, Lincoln would not have employed the flawed practice of printing greenbacks, which led to the Long Depression, and perhaps in the end the world would not have fallen into leftism and we would still be on the gold standard (oh, dreams, dreams). However, even today, one might be able to travel to the Confederacy and legally buy oneself a slave girl for a few gold coins. Or not? In short, my question is: who would have freed the slaves had DS been developed before the US Civil War?
анонимный вопрос
Throughout the nineteenth century, slaves were freed all over Eastern Europe, in Russia, and toward the end of the century, in Japan as well. The government freed them without waiting for revolutions and civil wars. There were a multitude of prerequisites for this, primarily economic. In Australia, an economic boom also occurred after the abandonment of slave labor in agriculture, and the economy there was quite similar in structure to the economy of the southern US states.
Even if the southern states had managed to resist this trend for a while, slaves would have been finally freed in the 20th century by tractors and cotton pickers.
There is an opinion that the Union and the Confederacy would have developed much more dynamically had a war not occurred between them. The Union would have had to temper its protectionist zeal because the Confederacy, advocating for a free market, was right next door. The Confederacy would have had to soften the condition of slaves, aiming roughly for the prosperity level of Irish immigrants in the North, so that the flow of fugitives would remain within more or less acceptable proportions. And, of course, both countries would not have suffered such human losses and would not have damaged their economies so severely. By the way, in the absence of war, two transcontinental railroads would have been built instead of one.
So, Lincoln paid for his disregard for the Constitution quite justly.
Therefore, today John Booth, who rid humanity of this unpleasant tyrant, deservedly graces the cover of the post
Last time, I enjoyed responding not with one large text to a single question, but with short answers to a series of questions. A number of such topics that do not require detailed answers have accumulated in the queue.
Ancap-chi, it seems to me that it is better to promote the term “polystate” rather than “panarchy,” because the latter sounds too much like “anarchy,” and ordinary folks, as I think you know, are very triggered by that word.
It’s a matter of habit. Legend has it that the first libertarians in Russia were often mistaken for vegetarians. Minarchists, naturally, are mistakenly read by many as monarchists. As for the possibility of confusing panarchists with anarchists, at least that is not offensive, because panarchy is one of the paths to anarchy. It seems to me that terms like polystate make sense to be used as auxiliary for now. For example, “I am a panarchist, meaning I advocate for a polystate, or more accurately, for multiple governments within one country” (as Alexey Shustov correctly notes in one of his interviews, in the Russian language, the state is a subject, not a system, which creates inconvenience in political discussions, and it is better to use “country,” “government,” or “regime” depending on the context instead of the overly vague “state”).
I saw an ad for agorists here; they have an article about obtaining an anonymous debit card by forging appearance and a passport. Apparently, there is only administrative liability and a fine of up to 80 thousand for this, but perhaps you know better ways to remain anonymous when making purchases in fiat?
This refers to this post, where at the end I referred to an article from the Cryptoagora channel. By the way, in the post, describing crypto-ATMs, I wrote that they work only in one direction: buying bitcoins with fiat. Later, in Georgia, I verified that the reverse is also possible; there, I actually had to sell bitcoins. I just want to note that for greater anonymity, when approaching a crypto-ATM, you should wear dark glasses, pull something with a wide brim over your head, raise your collar—in short, hide your face as much as possible to shield yourself from cameras. Cameras can be located both in the crypto-ATM itself and around it. Also, of course, when you go to a crypto-ATM, it makes sense to take a phone with a “left” SIM card. All these paranoid measures are intended to complicate operational-investigative actions if you suddenly become their target for some reason.
Is it true that under anarcho-capitalism, intellectual property is not provided for?
Maxim
Any person has the right to monetize any of their intangible assets by any non-violent means. They have the right to use violence only in the case when they are attempted to be deprived of this asset entirely, but not when some information they possess is copied. Even if someone copies the private key to their bitcoin wallet, that is not yet theft. Theft is the use of the key to move bitcoins out of that wallet.
I just cannot understand who will act as the guarantor of compliance with the rules? What happens if some hypothetical Ramzan Akhmatovich in the role of a night watchman decides not just to guard the peace, but to start explaining a bit how people should live?
Noob
Any gatekeeper is inclined to increase their significance at the expense of those they are supposed to serve, i.e., the residents of the guarded facility. The only argument that can bring them to reason is the threat of monetary sanctions, and ultimately, dismissal. For the threat of dismissal to be real, there must be Ivan Petrovich, Ravshan Jamshutovich, Jet Li, and Sigurd Olafson standing behind the gates waiting to be hired. That is exactly why panarchism looks like a more sane idea than minarchism in terms of the possibilities of limiting power.
In the book “After the State”, published in 2008, Alexei Shustov provides (pp. 66-67) a list of questions that remain unresolved in the panarchic model he proposed. Since then, thought has not stood still, and the Bitarch and I propose brief outlines of solutions to these issues.
1. How to organize border security? How to build and fund armedforces designed to protect the country from external force attempts?
As a reminder, the Shustov model is the construction of a panarchy within Russia as a single entity without dividing it into territorial units; therefore, the problem of external borders in such a poly-state remains relevant.
Border security in peacetime is quite pointless. It is impossible to block or levy duties on the cross-border movement of goods in a poly-state—the existence of a single ECU offering free trade is enough, and the entire flow will go through this internal offshore. The same applies to visa regimes. Individual ECUs may enforce boycotts of certain goods, people, and information for their clients, but this is carried out at the consumer level, not through border control.
Regarding protection from military invasion, the most important thing in the defense doctrine is the presence of citizens who have something to defend. The example of Ukraine shows that even under very unfavorable starting conditions, the self-organization of citizens works wonders. If free arms circulation exists in a number of the country’s jurisdictions, this significantly simplifies the task. However, such a militia plus private military companies are capable of handling territorial defense tasks rather. Meanwhile, a doctrine of preventing an attack by creating a personal threat to the leaders of the aggressor country can further reduce risks. With minimal coordination capabilities, governments will be able to agree on joint funding for a corresponding project of high-precision non-nuclear medium-range weapons, or some other surprises of the same sort.
2. How to organize
international relations? Who and on
what basis will represent the
country in interaction with
foreign states?
International relations consist of border demarcation, the procedure for extraditing criminals, visa regimes, and various duties.
Regarding borders, territorial states will find it difficult here, as their citizens will likely also begin to enter into agreements with ECUs—and it would be good if only with those attached to the corresponding territorial jurisdiction, because they might just as well agree with transnational ECUs. Cellular communication works in the border zone in both directions; similarly, regulations in the border zone will interpenetrate, further blurring the concept of the territorial state.
The procedure for extraditing criminals is relevant only in a situation of noticeable differences in legal systems and especially in law enforcement. Bargaining is inevitable here, in which more influential jurisdictions will have an advantage, but influence is an unstable substance and is distributed unevenly. In general, it will be the same as it is now, only more dynamic. At least, in situations of clear injustice, public outrage will be of greater importance for contract jurisdictions than for current democracies.
Duties, as shown above, if they exist at all, will only be unilateral, from the side of monopoly territorial entities; a poly-state cannot afford customs.
3. How to organize
an effective rebuff to attempts by external forces
of the financial-economic sector
to heat up contradictions between different
governments [ECUs] and exhaust the country
by playing on this?
One can imagine a hypothetical foreign Putin sponsoring conservative ECUs in Russia that advocate for spiritual values, and it becomes more profitable to become a client of such an ECU. Meanwhile, he might, for example, deny visas to clients of liberal ECUs and prohibit investments in his lucrative raw-material economy. Usually, this leads to the “market deciding” to create imitative structures that demonstrate to the outside the traits for which people are willing to pay, but ignore the internal content: first, it is cheaper, and second, there is no internal demand for it.
Moreover, the world does not revolve around a single foreign Machiavelli, so those ECUs that he dislikes will cooperate with someone else.
4. How to solve
environmental issues?
Each jurisdiction solves these issues in its own way. A liberal one leaves it to the owners, who, in turn, insure risks with insurance companies. A socialist one supports supervisory organizations that live for issuing fines or shaking down larger bribes (a bribe will not be more expensive than an insurance policy, otherwise the subject will flee to the liberals). Greens may found their own jurisdiction where consumers will support eco-friendly producers with money and boycott those who ignore the environment.
As for negative externalities arising from environmental disasters, they are compensated much more effectively through court in the presence of competing jurisdictions than under a monopoly burdened by a conflict of interest in the form of state ownership.
5. What to do
with objects of cultural and historical
heritage of the people to guarantee
their preservation?
Objects of cultural and historical heritage bring profit because they are interesting to tourists. For them to be preserved, it must be profitable to preserve them. For this, in turn, the owners of these objects must benefit from tourism. This is typical liberal logic, thanks to which the owner of each specific potentially interesting object decides whether it is more profitable to try to earn from the flow of tourists or to use the object in some other way, for example, to demolish it and build something else. As a result of such an approach, a quite diverse building landscape is formed, where antiquity neighbors modernity.
Other ECUs may introduce regulations that prohibit the destruction of historical monuments, but they will have to somehow compensate the owners for this inconvenience, otherwise they will flee to the liberals. Thus, in ECUs for lovers of antiquity, taxes for the maintenance of monuments are inevitable. As a result, through third-party funding, monuments whose direct monetization is difficult can be preserved.
Organizations like UNESCO will also contribute to solving the problem, as they are capable to a certain extent of influencing tourist flows by labeling: this is a world heritage site, and this is not. However, I suspect that soon UNESCO’s influence on the tourism business will become lower than that of a hypothetical TripAdvisor, and there will be no need to sponsor this bureaucratic dinosaur at the state’s expense.
6. How to regulate
relations in the field of natural resources,
especially specific ones such as water,
air, marine biological resources (which move
across the territory and are therefore not
tied to coordinates in space)?
In its time, hunting and gathering lost the economic competition to farming and animal husbandry due to their low efficiency. Similarly, as free fresh water, free sea fish, and free clean air become more expensive, the industrial production of these resources near the places of their consumption will become profitable. In short, this is not a question of jurisdictions at all, but a purely technical-economic question.
7. How to regulate
relations in places with a high concentration
of immovable property, where the actions
of one owner can affect the
essential characteristics of a neighboring
owner’s property (for example,
the construction of buildings that block
existing ones)?
Of course, such issues are more conveniently solved within functional jurisdictions, such as homeowners associations. This is not provided for within the Shustov model, so the issue falls into the sphere of disputes between different jurisdictions, and it is difficult to predict what practices will emerge here.
8. How to organize effective protection against cartel agreements by the strongest players of various markets that have a predisposition to monopolization?
In a free market, a monopoly is formed only if the overall size of the market is comparable to the optimal size of a company in terms of labor productivity. In all other cases, monopolization is unprofitable, and it can either be an entrepreneurial error that will quickly bankrupt the company, or this monopoly is imposed by means of violence, which no longer has anything to do with a free market. Thus, the effective protection against monopolization is precisely the free market, and in a situation of competing jurisdictions with free entry and exit, the prerequisites for the market being free are far greater than under the current state of affairs.
9. How to counter attempts by socially maladjusted individuals (those currently called criminals) to undermine the public safety system,built on the principle of equal rights agreements, and achieve a chaos profitable for them?
Freedom of gun ownership and the right to self-defense work wonders in this regard. Individual ECUs that do not recognize their clients’ right to independently offer armed resistance to violence will be forced to indeed make every effort to suppress armed violence using professional police; otherwise, they will lose the loyalty of their clients, who will move to jurisdictions that at least do not get in the way.
Furthermore, a potential offender cannot always immediately determine which jurisdiction their potential victim belongs to, and consequently, whether they are ready to fight back. Thus, even a single ECU that allows its clients to arm themselves becomes a positive externality for the others.
Libertarian band has released a new video from the “for grandmothers” series, this time about agorism. Be sure to watch it; I think it turned out quite lively. And for those who want to dive a bit deeper, I’ll remind you that I have already talked about agorism on my channel. In January, I answered a question from the Classical Liberal, where I pointed out that agorism is not the only way, and one should not completely neglect political methods, and in June, on the contrary, I responded to criticism of agorism regarding the claim that counter-economics does not weaken the state in any way.
Dr. Zoidberg’s seminar on the benefits of underground medicine
About a year ago, I wrote a post “On Participating in Elections”, where I gave my interpretation of why ancaps need it at all. Recently, a snide comment appeared under the post, suggesting that people will come up with anything just to convince voters to give up on boycotting. I replied to the comment, but perhaps these considerations should be put into a separate post.
Election boycotting is a tactic that leads to victory in only one case: if voters, by not showing up at polling stations, form their own self-governing bodies without the state’s participation and voluntarily use them, ignoring those created in state-organized elections. In other words, one should boycott not only the elections, but the state as such.
In principle, my argument that going to a polling station to vote or observe is simply practice can be flipped in favor of boycotting elections—that it is simply practice in boycotting the state. I agree, but it is one thing to practice a plank, and quite another to practice simply lying on the couch; nothing will come of that except bedsores. A boycott is an active refusal to cooperate, so if you want, you can practice specifically this skill; it is also very useful. In this case, you will need not just to skip the elections, but to convince as many people as possible to skip them, so that the preaching of non-participation in this shit is heard from everywhere. And then, not limiting yourself to elections, begin to boycott legislation on mass rallies, the tax code, the law on personal data, and many other harmful state regulations. Do not inform the state about your actions, because it’s a boycott—there is no state for you. Treat state employees as ordinary people, and if they use violence, as ordinary gangsters.
In short, a boycott is a very difficult and responsible path, and boycotting elections is only the beginning. If you are not ready for it yet, or consider it hopeless, then it is better to practice the skills of democratic decision-making. Again, a year ago, when I suggested you engage in this, the exercise was simple. Now, the proposal is to master something more complex—not just to simulate filling out a ballot, dropping it in the box, and counting votes, but additionally, to do this in a consolidated manner, within the framework of smart voting. If anyone hasn’t registered to participate in this flashmob yet—I highly recommend it, because ancap is not about aggressive individualism where you don’t give a damn about anything except your immediate desires. Ancap is about living in a society without coercion, based on voluntary cooperation. Smart voting is the opposition of that very voluntary cooperation to the administrative resource, so it’s high time to show whose kung fu is stronger.
Who will you bet on: the balding old man, or the guy whose hand Svetov himself shook?
To start, I recommend reading the question itself and my answer to it. I primarily covered the transition between panarchy and ancap, while in the “Anti-state” channel you can read another answer from Ved Neuman, which mainly concerns the transition from statism to panarchy.
Civil society in Russia has been trying to rock the boat and change the government for something more human-like for quite some time now, in order to stop the country’s slide into an authoritarian hole. Alexei Navalny has long and firmly been the frontman of the Russian protest.
The core of Navalny’s agenda is the exploitation of the public demand for justice. Lawlessness, corruption, and the looting of the state budget—covering all these topics ensured Navalny’s well-deserved popularity. Nationalists tried to speak out against the infringement of the rights of the Russian-speaking population, but this aspect of justice proved not to be particularly in demand among the masses. Old-regime democrats peddled the theme of Russian foreign policy aggression, the tightening of civil liberties, and the escalation of political repression—but they only earned the label of “demshiza” (democratic crazies). Libertarians protested against increased regulation and higher taxes—they were completely ignored. Everything flowed in its own way until Svetov arrived.
In the eyes of the average citizen, Navalny’s agenda boiled down to the idea that once he comes to power, he will imprison all the crooks and thieves, thereby restoring justice. Svetov increased the level of populism even further, adding: those we don’t imprison, we will fire without severance pay and strip of their political rights. Such a demand for revenge, due to the use of the sophisticated word “Lustration,” did not resonate with people immediately, but aggressive advertising did its job. The Libertarian Party received a huge influx of fresh blood and rightfully took its place in the protest pantheon to the right of Navalny himself.
An interesting situation emerged where the theme of freedom practically vanished from the public discourse of the LPR, replaced by that very theme of justice, since this rhetoric brings more political points. The main task of the LPR now, judging by the rhetoric, is to overthrow the regime together with its allies; after that, they can distance themselves from Navalny and other fellow travelers and begin advocating for their own specific agenda of reforms. To what extent the Libertarian Party will preserve libertarian values within itself by that time is not yet very clear; however, it is becoming obvious that libertarianism is much broader than what the party does (and what is generally appropriate for a political party to do).
Previously, the activities of the LPR consisted not so much of politics as of education; now the situation has changed, and politics has come to the forefront. This is wonderful, as the division of labor usually contributes to greater efficiency of that very labor. At the same time, of course, it should be expected that those who are not interested in political activity at all, and who were members specifically for the sake of education, or who viewed it as a hobby club, will leave the party. This is logical, since many ancaps fundamentally believe that engaging in politics is pointless, and it would be far more appropriate, for example, to promote a libertarian lifestyle.
I believe that minarchists and panarchists may also receive some indirect profit from the spread of ancap ideas among the apolitical masses, and ancaps are unlikely to lose from having a conditionally friendly political representation—after all, they have nothing against using the state’s weak points to weaken it. Therefore, I urge you not to interfere with libertarians getting into politics, not to quarrel with LPR members, but also not to believe that this party is the only beacon of hope, and that any libertarian activity must be somehow coordinated with this political organization.
However, entering politics under libertarian slogans outside of the LPR is already a serious claim that the libertarian market niche is large and capable of accommodating more than one libertarian party. Perhaps this is true, but here you will have to be ready for fierce competition, which may prove counterproductive, as it diverts resources away from competing with pro-government organizations.
Libertarians in Navalny’s right hand, and coffee in his left. That is how we shall conquer!
